UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711

JUL 9 1992

MEMORANDUM 

SUBJECT: Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Submittals 

FROM: John Calcagni, Director 

Air Quality Management Division, OAQPS (MD-15) 

TO: Director, Air, Pesticides and Toxics 

Management Division, Regions I and IV 

Director, Air and Waste Management Division, 

Region II 

Director, Air, Radiation, and Toxics Division, 

Region III 

Director, Air and Radiation Division, 

Region V 

Director, Air, Pesticides, and Toxics Division, 

Region VI 

Director, Air and Toxics Division, 

Regions VII, VIII, IX, and X 

This memorandum provides guidance concerning the processing of SIP submittals. In 

general, there are three situations that can occur related to each required submittal: the State may 

fail to submit the required plan, the State may make a submittal that is not complete, or the State 

may make a complete submittal. Once a State submits a SIP and the Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has determined that the submittal is complete, EPA must either approve or 

disapprove the submittal within a specified time period. However, if the State fails to make a 

required submittal or makes a submittal that is determined to be incomplete, the sanctions and 

Federal implementation plan (FIP) provisions of sections 179 and 110(c), respectively, will be 

triggered. In addition, disapproval of a submittal also triggers the sanctions and FIP provisions. 

These provisions are discussed in further detail in this memorandum. 

There are, however, three alternatives to full approval or full disapproval of a complete 

SIP submittal: partial approval, limited approval, and conditional approval. Each of these is 

discussed in more detail below along with some guidance as to when each might be used. In 

addition, Attachment 1 to this memorandum contains several examples of how these may be 
2 

used. Attachment 2 to this memorandum is a table that summarizes the requirements discussed 

below. 

Partial Approval/Disapproval 

Section 110(k)(3) of the amended Clean Air Act (Act) addresses the situation in which an 

entire submittal, or a separable portion of a submittal, meets all applicable requirements of the 

Act. Where the entire submittal meets all the requirements of the Act, EPA will fully approve the 

entire submittal. In the case where a separable portion of the submittal meets all of the applicable 

requirements, partial approval may be used to approve that part of the submittal and disapprove 

the remainder. It is important that the two parts of the submittal be separable. By separable, 

EPA means that the action it anticipates taking will not result in the approved rule(s) being more 

stringent than the State anticipated. See Bethlehem Steel Corp. v. Gorsuch, 742 F. 2d 1028 (7th 

Cir. 1984); Indiana and Michigan Elec. Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 733 F. 2d 489 (7th Cir. 1984). For 

example, EPA cannot approve part of a submittal that specifies control measures and disapprove 

the part that specifies the test methods associated with those control measures. The EPA has 

frequently taken a partial approval approach in the past to process groups of rules that are 

submitted together. The EPA can approve some of the rules and disapprove the rest as 

long as the rules that are disapproved do not affect those that are approved. The disapproval of 

any part of a required SIP submittal starts the clocks discussed above for sanctions and FIP'S. 

Limited Approval/Disapproval 

In some cases, a submittal may contain certain provisions that meet the applicable 

requirements of the Act along with other provisions that do not meet the requirements, and the 

provisions are not separable. Although the submittal may not meet all of the applicable 

requirements, EPA may want to consider whether the submittal as a whole has a strengthening 

effect on the SIP. If that is the case, limited approval may be used to approve a rule that 

strengthens the existing SIP as representing an improvement over what is currently in the SIP and 

as meeting some of the applicable requirements of the Act. 

The Act does not expressly provide for limited approvals. Rather, EPA is using its 

"gap-filling" authority under section 301(a) of the Act in conjunction with the section 110(k)(3) 

approval provision to interpret the Act to provide for this type of approval action. 
3 

Through a limited approval, EPA would concurrently, or within a reasonable time 

thereafter, disapprove the rule, under the relevant provision(s) of Part D, for not meeting all of the 

applicable requirements of the Act. As with the limited approval action the limited disapproval is a 

rulemaking action, and it is subject to notice and comment. Under section 110(k), EPA must take 

final rulemaking action on SIP submittals within 12 months of the date EPA determines the 

submittal is complete or the submittal is automatically deemed to be complete if EPA fails to 

make a completeness determination. As a general matter, although the statute directs EPA to act 

within that timeframe, EPA's failure to finalize the disapproval portion of the action within that 

12-month timeframe will not affect the validity of any prior or subsequent limited approval or 

limited disapproval.[See footnote 1] The EPA's failure to take action prior to the expiration of the 

12-month period could, however, subject EPA to a lawsuit to compel such an action. 

A key distinction between the limited approval and a partial approval is that under a 

limited approval EPA's approval action goes to the entire rule. In other words, although portions 

of a rule prevent EPA from finding that the rule meets a certain requirement of the Act, EPA 

believes that the rule, as a whole, strengthens the SIP. Therefore, EPA approves the entire 

rule--even those portions that prohibit full approval. Likewise, when EPA issues the limited 

disapproval, the disapproval applies to the entire rule as failing to meet a specific requirement of 

the Act. The rule remains a part of the SIP, however, under the limited disapproval, because the 

rule strengthens the SIP. The disapproval only applies to whether the submittal meets a specific 

requirement of the Act and does not affect incorporation of the rule into the approved, federally 

enforceable SIP. 

The primary advantage to using the limited approval approach is to make the State 

submittal federally enforceable and to increase the SIP's potential to achieve additional reductions. 

Therefore, limited approval should not be used to approve any rule that is unenforceable for all 

situations--for example, a rule that lacks a test method. These rules and any other rules that do 

not have an overall strengthening effect on the SIP should be disapproved. Limited approval can 

be used, however, 

Footnote 1. The March 22, 1991 memorandum from John Calcagni discussed the potential impact

of Abramowitz v. U.S. E.P.A., 832, F. 2d 1071 (9th Cir. 1988), on EPA's decision to split the

approval and disapproval portions of a limited approval. After reevaluating that case, we believe it

may have a narrower impact than initially described and, therefore, generally would

not impact the timing of limited approval/disapproval actions.
4 

where the rule is unenforceable for some limited number of situations but is enforceable for the 

majority of situations, if the rule, as a whole, strengthens the SIP. 

The disapproval coinciding with (or following) the limited approval also starts the 

sanctions and FIP clocks discussed above. With the limited approval EPA may or may not have a 

commitment from the State to correct the deficiency. The EPA may choose to use the limited 

approval approach (instead of conditional approval) in the case where the State has submitted a 

commitment as part of a rule but EPA has reason to believe that the State will not be able to meet 

the commitment (as discussed below). Where a limited approval/disapproval approach is taken, 

the notice of proposed rulemaking (NPR) should clearly identify which requirements have not 

been met and what action would be required on the part of the State to meet those requirements. 

Conditional Approval 

Under section 110(k)(4) of the Act EPA may conditionally approve a plan based on a 

commitment from the State to adopt specific enforceable measures within 1 year from the date of 

approval. If the State fails to meet its commitment within the 1-year period, the approval is 

treated as a disapproval. We expect that conditional approvals will be used only in rare situations 

that merit special consideration. We will evaluate specific types of SIP submittals [e.g., reasonably 

available control technology (RACT) catch-ups, particles with an aerodynamic diameter less than 

or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM-10) SIP'S] to determine whether certain elements of 

that type of submittal, or that type of submittal as a whole, merit conditional approval. For this 

reason and to ensure consistency, Regions should not use conditional approvals without input 

from Headquarters as to whether such an approach is appropriate. Furthermore, as any statutory 

deadline approaches, we may issue guidance regarding the 

appropriate use of conditional approval with respect to that specific requirement. 

Once a determination has been made that a specific type of submittal can be considered for 

conditional approval, Regions must make a determination of whether an individual State submittal 

should be conditionally approved. The first consideration should be whether the State has made 

(or agrees to make) a commitment to adopt specific enforceable measures within 1 year of EPA 

approval. The commitment must be made in writing by the party responsible for adopting the 
5 

specified measures before the plan is conditionally approved, and the commitment must be 

submitted by the State.[See footnote 2] 

In addition, to the extent that the commitment materially alters the existing rule (in 

respects that the public could not reasonably have anticipated would result from the public review 

of the existing rule), or is a commitment to adopt an entire rule or set of rules, the commitment 

must be a SIP revision submittal by the State. In many cases, the determination of whether the 

commitment materially alters the underlying rule may be based on whether a similar issue was 

raised during the earlier State proceedings on the submitted rule. In general, each commitment 

will need to be examined to determine whether it materially alters the submitted rule. As with any 

SIP revision, in order for EPA to accept the commitment as a SIP revision, the State must have 

provided notice and public hearing on the submitted commitment. However, EPA has the 

discretion to parallel process commitments and in limited circumstances may propose conditional 

approval of the commitment and allow the State process to proceed on a parallel track. 

As a general matter, the greater the extent to which a submittal is lacking in important plan 

elements, the less appropriate the use of conditional approval may be. It should be noted, 

however, that there may be circumstances under which EPA would accept a SIP revision 

consisting of a commitment only (without specifically adopted rules) as a candidate for 

conditional approval. In such cases, the commitment should also be accompanied by a work plan 

detailing any specific measures to be adopted, the steps that will be taken to adopt the measures, 

and the schedule for adoption of those measures. As stated earlier, a submittal that consists 

entirely of a commitment will be considered a SIP revision that is subject to the State process for 

submitting SIP revisions, e.g., notice and a public hearing. 

Where the submittal contains specifically adopted rules that need some revisions or 

corrections to be fully-approvable, the commitment may not need to be as comprehensive. The 

commitment should, however, be as explicit as possible concerning the measures that will be 

adopted, the steps that will be taken to adopt the measures, and the schedule for adoption of 

those measures. 

Footnote 2. Although the commitment must identify the measures to be adopted and contain a 

schedule for adopting such measures, it is not necessary for the commitment itself to be 

enforceable in a State court. 
6 

Because the conditional approval relies on a commitment from the State, EPA would need 

some level of confidence that the State would be able to meet such a commitment. In making a 

determination as to whether a State could reasonably be expected to meet its commitment, EPA 

would need to consider a number of factors such as: 

* the amount of technical work necessary for the measures to be adopted; 

* whether adoption of the measures is expected to be controversial; 

* the average length of the State adoption process; 

* how far along in the process the State is; and 

* the State's past track record. 

It should be noted that these are only some of the factors that should be considered. Each 

Region, in making a determination regarding the credibility of the State's commitment, may have 

to look at a number of other factors. The Region should clearly explain, either in the NPR or in a 

technical support document, the rationale for these determinations. 

In addition to the determination of whether the State's commitment is credible, the Region 

must make a determination as to whether it is appropriate to conditionally approve a revision on 

the merits of that revision. Conditional approval might typically be used in the same types of 

situations as the limited approval. As with the limited approval, one of the main advantages of the 

conditional approval approach is to make the State submittal (where the submittal contains 

control requirements and not just a commitment to adopt enforceable measures) federally 

enforceable and to increase its potential to achieve additional reductions. Because the 

conditionally approved submittal will become a part of the SIP, the Region should be certain that 

the approval of the commitment will hot weaken the existing SIP. The Region may also want to 

consider when the plan (or plan element) that has been submitted was due. 

The NPR for a conditional approval should clearly identify which requirements are the 

subject of the commitment and, therefore, have not been met. In addition, both the NPR and the 

State's commitment should clearly identify what action is required on the part of the State. Unlike 

the limited approval/disapproval, the conditional approval does not immediately start the sanctions 

and FIP clocks. These clocks start if and when the approval is converted to a disapproval. 

There are at least two ways that the conditional approval may be converted to a 
7 

disapproval. [See footnote 3] First, if the State fails to adopt and submit the specified measures by 

the end of 1 year (from the final conditional approval), or fails to submit anything at all, EPA will 

have to issue a finding of disapproval but will not have to propose the disapproval. That is 

because in the original proposed and final conditional approval, EPA will have provided notice 

and an opportunity for comment on the fact that EPA would directly make the finding of 

disapproval (by letter) if the State failed to submit anything.[See footnote 4] Therefore, at the end 

of 1 year from the conditional approval, the Regional Administrator (RA) will send a letter to the 

State finding that it had failed to meet its commitment and that the SIP submittal is disapproved. 

The 18-month clock for sanctions and the 2-year clock for a FIP start as of the date of the letter. 

Subsequently, a notice to that effect will be published in the Federal Register, and appropriate 

language will be inserted in the Code of Federal Regulations. Similarly, if EPA receives a 

submittal addressing the commitment but determines that the submittal is incomplete, the RA will 

send a letter to the State making such a finding. As with the failure to submit, the sanctions and 

FIP clocks will begin as of the date of the finding letter. 

Second, where the State does make a complete submittal by the end of the 1-year period, 

EPA will have to evaluate that submittal to determine if it may be approved and take final action 

on the submittal within 12 months after the date EPA determines the submittal is complete. If the 

submittal does not adequately address the deficiencies that were the subject of the conditional 

approval, and is therefore not approvable, EPA will have to go through notice-and-comment 

rulemaking to disapprove the submittal. The 18- month clock for sanctions and the 2-year clock 

for a FIP start as of the date of final disapproval. If EPA determines that the rule is approvable, 

EPA will propose approval of the rule. In either instance, whether EPA finally approves or 

disapproves the rule, the conditional approval remains in effect until EPA takes its final action. 

Footnote 3. It should be noted that this disapproval can be a limited approval/disapproval. In 

some cases, the Regions may want to use such an approach to retain the enforceability of control 

measures. The NPR should indicate if this approach is planned. 

Footnote 4. To provide for this contingency, in the final conditional approval, EPA would need to 

provide, for example, "If the State fails to make a submittal or makes only an incomplete submittal 

during the time period for submittal of the rule, EPA will issue a letter to the State 

which converts the conditional approval to a disapproval." 
8 

It should be noted that EPA will conditionally approve a certain rule only once. 

Subsequent submittals of the same rule that attempt to correct the same specifically identified 

problems will not be eligible for conditional approval. 

Sanctions and FIP Requirements 

Actions that Trigger the Sanctions and FIP Requirements 

The actions EPA has the authority to take under the sanctions and FIP provisions of the 

Act correspond to the different steps EPA must follow as it reviews and processes SIP submittals. 

As discussed previously, the Act in section 179[See footnote 5] requires EPA to impose sanctions 

based on four types of actions (findings[See footnote 6]) provided in section 179(a): 

(1) a finding that a State has failed to submit a SIP, a SIP element,[See footnote 7] or 

has submitted a SIP or SIP element that does not satisfy the completeness criteria; 

(2) that EPA disapproval of a SIP submission for A nonattainment area based on its 

failure to meet one or more elements required by the Act; 

(3) a determination that the State has not made any other submission, has made an 

inadequate submission (as required by the Act), or that EPA disapproves such a 

submission; or 

(4) a finding that a requirement of an approved plan is not being implemented. 

Footnote 5. Section 110(m) grants EPA broad authority to apply either sanction listed in section 

179(b) " . . . at any time (or at any time after) a finding . . . " under section 179(a) with respect to 

any portion of the State, with certain exceptions. This memorandum is intended to address the 

application of sanctions under section 179. The section 179 sanctions apply only to the area for 

which a finding has been made. 

Footnote 6. Although subsections (1)-(4) refer to findings, determinations and disapprovals, for 

simplicity these four actions will be referred to as "findings." 

Footnote 7. Since EPA does not intend to issue a list of such elements per se, to ensure that such 

findings are consistently applied, findings of failure to submit SIP elements should be decided on a 

case-by-case basis in conjunction with Headquarters. The basis for the finding should be clear 

and well-supported. 
9 

Under section 110(c)(1), EPA is required to promulgate a FIP based on two types of 

findings:[See footnote 8] 

(1) a finding that a State has failed to make a required submittal or that a submittal 

does not satisfy the minimum completeness criteria established under section 

110(k)(1)(A), or 

(2) the EPA disapproval of a SIP submittal in whole or in part. 

The Sanctions and FIP Clocks 

Although EPA may make any of the findings discussed above to trigger the 179(a) 

sanctions and 110(c)(1) FIP requirements, these findings do not require the immediate imposition 

of sanctions or promulgation of a FIP. Instead the Act provides a "clock" for sanctions and FIP'S. 

For plan submittals required under Part D or in response to a SIP call, section I 179(a) allows for 

up to 18 months for the State to correct the deficiency that is the subject of a finding or 

disapproval before EPA is required to impose sanctions. Section 110(c)(1) provides for up to 2 

years for the State to correct the deficiency and for EPA to approve a new submittal before EPA 

is obligated to promulgate a FIP. 

The Administrator has delegated the authority to make findings of failure to submit to the 

RA's. The findings are made via letters from the RA's to State governors or other State officers to 

whom authority has been delegated. The letter itself triggers the sanctions and FIP clocks. For 

disapprovals, the Federal Register notice in which EPA takes final action triggers the sanctions 

and FIP clocks. Findings of nonimplementation have traditionally been processed as rulemaking 

actions through Headquarters. The sanctions clock will start when EPA makes a finding of 

nonimplementation in the Federal Register after soliciting comment on the proposal (the FIP clock 

is not triggered by such a finding). Although the findings of failure to submit and SIP disapproval 

start both the sanctions and FIP clocks, what is required to stop the clocks differs; therefore, they 

are discussed separately. Note that in some cases the sanctions clock may be stopped while EPA 

remains under an obligation to promulgate a FIP. 

Footnote 8. Since the deficiency is a failure to implement after a State has submitted a plan and 

EPA has approved it, it is unnecessary for this finding to trigger a requirement that EPA develop 

the required rule (i.e., prepare a FIP) and section 110(c)(1) does not require it. 
10

Sanctions Clock 

Under section 179(a), in order to stop the sanctions clock, the State must correct the 

"deficiency" prompting the finding. The EPA must apply one of the two sanctions available under 

section 179(b) within 18 months after the date of the finding and both sanctions at 24 months, 

unless the deficiency has been corrected. Section 179(a) also requires EPA to apply both 

sanctions after 18 months if EPA finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State. 

Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios illustrating how the sanctions clock operates, 

including examples of what constitutes a deficiency correction (and hence a stopping of the 

clock). In brief, for purposes of the sanctions clock, findings of failure to submit plans or 

complete plans are corrected when EPA finds the submittal complete[See footnote 9] [although 

the FIP clock, is still running (see FIP clock discussion)] and disapprovals are corrected when 

EPA takes final rulemaking action approving the plan. In addition, findings of nonimplementation 

are corrected when EPA makes a finding in the Federal Register that the State is now 

implementing that provision. 

FIP Clock 

Under the FIP provisions, either a SIP must be approved or a FIP must promulgated 

within 2 years of one of the two findings discussed above. In other words, EPA must approve the 

State submittal in order to stop the FIP clock. Where the sanctions and FIP clocks were started by 

EPA disapproval of a plan, the clocks will run concurrently. In this case, to correct the deficiency 

for purposes of the sanctions clock, the State must make a submittal which EPA finds approvable. 

Such a determination is not made until EPA issues a final approval of the plan. Final approval of a 

plan is also what is needed to stop the FIP clock. Attachment 3 provides seven scenarios of how 

the FIP clock operates. 

Footnote 9. Where EPA made a finding of failure to submit and subsequently finds that the State 

has made a complete submittal for the plan or plan element that was the subject of the finding, the 

letter that makes the finding of completeness will notify the State that the sanctions clock is 

stopped as of the date of that letter. The Region should periodically announce any such findings 

that represent corrections of failure to submit in the Federal Register. 
11

Available Sanctions 

For plan submittals required under Part D or in response to a SIP call, if the State does not 

correct the specific deficiency within the 18-month period allowed under section 179(a), EPA 

must apply at least one of the two sanctions available under section 179(b)[See footnote 10] as 

described: 

(1) Highway funding sanctions. The EPA may impose a prohibition on the approval 

by the Secretary of Transportation of certain projects, or the awarding of certain 

grants. 

(2) Offset sanctions. A ratio of at least 2-to-1 will be required for emissions 

reductions within the nonattainment area to offset emissions from new or 

modified major facilities (as required under section 173). 

Regions should determine which of the sanctions will be applied at the 18- and 24-month 

milestones on a case-by-case basis. As discussed previously, EPA must apply both sanctions at the 

18-month mark if it finds there is a lack of good faith effort. Such a determination should be made 

on a case-by-case basis in consultation with Headquarters. In addition, once one of the sanctions 

has been imposed, EPA must impose the second sanctions if the deficiency has not been corrected 

within 6 months (regardless of the State's efforts). Headquarters will issue a proposal of the 

sanctions and the Regional Office will issue the final rule imposing sanctions. 

Conclusion 

General comments on this memorandum should be directed to Pam Johnson of the 

Regional Operations Branch at (919) 541-5270. Comments related specifically to ozone or carbon 

monoxide should be directed to Carla Oldham at (919) 541-3347. Comments related to 

particulate matter, sulfur dioxide, or lead should be directed to Chris Stoneman at (919) 

541-0823. 

cc: Regional Air Counsels, 

Regions I-X Chief, 

Air Programs Branch, Regions I-X 

Jane Armstrong, OMS (Ann Arbor) 

William Becker, STAPPA/ALAPCO 

Denise Devoe, OAQPS (ANR-443) 

Footnote 10. In addition, section 179(a) provides for an air pollution grant sanction that applies to 

grants EPA may award under section 105. However, since it is not a sanction provided under 

section 179(b), it is not one of the sanctions EPA must impose after the 18-month period. 
12 

Tom Helms, AQMD (MD-15) 

Bill Laxton, TSD (MD-14) 

Ed Lillis, AQMD (MD-15)

Rich Ossias, OGC (LE-132A) 

Joe Paisie, AQMD (MD-15) 

John Rasnic, SSCD (EN-341W) 

John Seitz, OAQPS (MD-10) 

Paula Van Lare, OMS (ANR-445) 

Lydia Wegman, OAQPS (MD-10)

Attachment 1 
Example 1 

A State submits a SIP revision containing four rules: (1) control requirements for bulk 

gasoline plants, (2) control requirements for gasoline dispensing facilities (Stage I), (3) leak 

detection requirements for gasoline tanks trucks, and (4) test methods that apply to these three 

rules. The EPA review of the rules shows that all of the rules except the Stage I rule meet the 

applicable requirements of the Act. The Stage I rule fails to require submerged fill loading for all 

storage tanks. This is inconsistent with EPA's RACT guidance and the State has failed to propose 

an alternative that it has demonstrated is RACT for the applicable sources. 

Partial Approval 

Under the partial approval option, EPA can approve the rules for bulk terminals and tank 

truck leaks, approve the test methods, and disapprove the Stage I rule. These rules are separable 

from the Stage I rule. Disapproval of the Stage I rule does not affect the stringency of the other 

three rules. Therefore, the other three rules may be approved under this provision. However, the 

submittal as a whole would only be partially approved. 

Limited Approval of Stage I Rule 

Under the limited approval approach, EPA could approve the Stage I rule as being an 

improvement over what is currently in the SIP and, at the same time or within a reasonable time 

after the approval (but no later than 12 months after the submittal is complete), disapprove the 

rule because it does not represent RACT. The sanctions and FIP clocks would start upon the final 

disapproval of the rule. 

Conditional Approval 

Alternatively, EPA could conditionally approve the Stage I rule if the State committed to 

revise the rule, within 1 year of the conditional approval, to require submerged fill loading. If the 

State then failed to make such a revision, EPA would issue a finding converting the conditional 

approval to a disapproval. 

Example 2 

If in example 1 the first three rules (containing control requirements) are all approvable 

but the fourth (containing the test methods) is either deficient or has not been submitted, then the 

submittal would have to be handled differently. Because a test method is critical in determining 

the stringency of a control requirement and is needed for the requirements to be enforceable, these 

rules cannot be considered separable and, therefore, partial approval would not be an option. In 

addition, because the control requirements will not be enforceable without a test method, it would 

not be appropriate to use either the limited or conditional approval approach. 
Example 3 

A State submits a SIP revision that contains four PM-10 rules, two for controlling 

emissions of fugitive dust and two for the control of residential wood combustion. The rules 

represent reasonable available control measures (RACM) and include (1) paving or stabilizing 

unpaved roads, (2) developing a traffic reduction plan for unpaved roads, (3) a mandatory episode 

curtailment program for residential wood combustion, and (4) encouraging changeover to new 

source performance standards and wood stoves. The third rule is deficient in that it does not 

provide a communication strategy on which the curtailment program is dependent. 

Partial Approval 

The EPA may approve the three rules which satisfy RACM but disapprove the episode 

curtailment program as failing to meet the RACM requirement. These rules are separable because 

disapproval of the curtailment program will not have any effect on the stringency or enforceability 

of the remaining rules. 

Limited Approval 

The EPA may approve the episode curtailment plan as strengthening the SIP by providing 

enforceable measures in a SIP which currently has no curtailment program. At the same time or 

within a reasonable time after the approval (but no later than 12 months after the submittal is 

complete), EPA must disapprove the rule as not representing RACM. Final disapproval of the 

rule would start the sanctions and FIP clocks. 

Conditional Approval 

The EPA may conditionally approve the rule if the State submits a commitment to submit 

a revised rule within 1 year of the approval. If the State then failed to make such a revision, EPA 

would issue a finding converting the conditional approval to a disapproval. Attachment 2 

Type of 

Approval Separability 

Partial rules must be 

separable 

Limited deficient 

portion of 

submittal is 

not separable 

Conditional deficient 

portion of 

submittal is 

not separable 

Act SIP 

Commitment Requirements Strengthening 

no 

commitment 

necessary 

no 

commitment 

necessary 

State must 

commit to 

correct 

within 1 

year 

part to be part to be 

approved must approved must 

meet all strengthen the 

applicable SIP 

requirements 

does not have submittal as a 

to meet all whole must 

applicable strengthen the 

requirements SIP 

does not have submittal as a 

to meet all whole must 

applicable strengthen the 

requirements SIP 
Attachment 3: Sanctions and FIP Clocks Scenarios 

Scenario 1: The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete prior to the statutory due date of the 

SIP. 

Although a finding that the State submitted an incomplete SIP is one of the section 179(a) 

findings, the sanctions and FIP clocks will not begin to run until after a submittal is due. This is 

because the finding must be based on the failure to submit a complete required SIP or SIP element 

and the submittal is not required until it is due under the statute. If a SIP submitted prior to a due 

date is still incomplete by the due date, then EPA will notify the State by letter that the plan 

remains incomplete and that the 18-month sanctions clock and the 2-year FIP clock have started. 

Scenario 2: The EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete on or after the statutory due date of 

the SIP. 

If EPA receives a SIP and finds it incomplete pursuant to section 110(k) on or after the 

statutory due date of the SIP, then, as in scenario 1, the State has failed to make a complete 

submittal under section 179(a). The EPA will notify the State by letter that the plan is incomplete 

and that the 18-month sanctions clock and the 2-year FIP clock have started. 

Scenario 3: The EPA receives no submittal at the due date. 

If EPA receives no submittal from a State to meet a statutory due date, then it may make a 

finding of failure to submit under section 179(a)(1), triggering the 18-month sanctions clock and 

the 2-year FIP clock. 

Scenario 4: After the due date, EPA receives a SIP for which it originally made a finding of failure 

to submit. 

Upon receiving the plan, the sanctions clock will continue to run during the completeness 

review and be stopped if EPA finds the plan complete and continue if EPA finds the plan 

incomplete. If the 18 months elapse during the time EPA is doing its completeness review, EPA 

will not impose sanctions unless it determines the plan incomplete. If sanctions have been imposed 

prior to the State's submittal, the sanctions will remain in place until EPA determines the submittal 

complete. 

The FIP clock continues to run while EPA makes its completeness determination. 

Scenario 5: The EPA originally makes a finding of failure to submit, then receives a SIP, finds it 

complete, but disapproves it in final rulemaking. 
Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State corrects the deficiency that 

prompted the finding of nonsubmittal and the sanctions clock stops. A new sanctions clock will 

start upon the final SIP disapproval rulemaking. The new sanctions clock will not stop until EPA 

has taken final action to approve the revised SIP submittal. 

Even after the submittal is determined to be complete, EPA remains under obligation to 

promulgate a FIP. Therefore, the disapproval of the SIP does not start a new FIP clock. 

Scenario 6: The EPA originally makes a finding of failure to submit, then receives a SIP, finds it 

complete, and approves it in final rulemaking. 

Upon a determination that the SIP is complete, the State corrects the deficiency prompting 

the finding of nonsubmittal and the sanctions clock stops. The EPA remains under obligation to 

promulgate a FIP until EPA takes final rulemaking action to approve the SIP. 

Scenario 7: The EPA finds that a State has failed to implement a SIP or SIP provision. 

The EPA will make a finding of nonimplementation in the Federal Register after soliciting 

comment on the proposal. The sanctions clock will start upon EPA taking final action and stop 

when EPA makes a finding in the Federal Register after notice-and-comment rulemaking that the 

State has corrected the deficiency that prompted the finding. A finding of 

nonimplementation does not start a FIP clock.